Paul's Passing Thoughts

Part 4: FACT; Church Orthodoxy is Consistent with Accepting Homosexuality. The Historical Development

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 10, 2018

ppt-jpeg4“In fact, one of the authors of Present Truth and core member of the Forum who wrote an article in the journal titled, “The False Gospel of The New Birth,” was invited to lecture at Southern Seminary by Al Mohler in 2009. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. That same year, John Piper praised the lectures as an accurate treatise about why the Reformation was necessarily.” 

In this series, we are looking at the most recent trending controversy in the church: the acceptance of homosexuals into the fold. Churchians are very confused regarding the many conservative leaders within the church that are advocating this movement.

However, the confusion and even outrage is the result of misunderstanding; indeed, the foundational elements of church orthodoxy allows for homosexuals to be members of the church in good standing.

To begin with, church orthodoxy, at least in the Protestant sense, denies a salvific change in a person’s state of being. Saving faith enables one to see or perceive the reality of good and evil, but any possibility that man can do good is excluded. Hence, people are saved by the gnosis (the knowledge of…), but salvation is not an instantaneous transformation from a past state of being to a new one resulting in new behavior as a natural result.

In this part, we will take a closer look at this particular church soteriology, and how it will inevitably lead to wholesale acceptance of homosexuals in the church despite outcries from the confused. Fundamentally, church is a rejection of the biblical new birth and how the new birth changes a person’s state of being and relationship to the law.

Church has undergone three historical transitions from its conception until now. In the beginning, it was a collectivist church-state. A person’s value was determined by a person’s ability to contribute to the church-state. No individual was able to seek God on their own; the church was supposedly God’s preordained bridge between man and Himself. Said another way, the church was/is God’s appointed authority over salvation on earth. Water baptism, according to the Reformers, is the initiation into church membership which is synonymous with being part of the body of Christ. In more words, church membership and salvation are mutually inclusive.

Furthermore, salvation was seen as a PROCESS, not a finished work by God. Church is the vessel that oversees and orchestrates the individual’s salvation journey from beginning to end. If you aren’t a member of a local church, you are not on that journey and not entered into the “race of faith.” This is black and white Protestant orthodoxy according to its founding documents and confessions…period, end of discussion.

Moreover, the church in general, and its pastors in particular, have authority over salvation via deciding who is in or who is out regarding church membership. In the final analysis, because church membership is efficacious for being on the salvation journey, Protestant pastors have authority over salvation on earth, and for all practical purposes, forgiveness of sin as well because forgiveness for “present sin” can only be obtained through church membership. In the same way, Catholicism is a progressive salvation overseen by the authority of the church but the process is somewhat different. But in both cases, it is an authority and mediation other than Christ alone.

Without getting into a lengthy historical aside, the American Revolution confused the church orthodoxy that had come over the big pond from the Church of England and other European religions. But it was all predicated on the authority of man. Americanism’s separation of church and state unleashed individualism on the church institution. Ideas of salvation being a onetime final transformation (once saved always saved) and growth in personal righteousness became integrated into the church. While the church maintained a progressive justification mode of “worship,” it began to lean heavily towards a born-again/new birth application and intellectual confession.

However, the tension between a progressive justification form of worship and the idea of personal transformation created a tension that greatly hindered a full-orbed sanctification. Christianity became a confused hybrid of two presuppositions concerning mankind. But overall, the church believed that salvation was a new birth that enabled the believer to please God as a new creation, but this was NEVER Protestant orthodoxy. Sure, a remnant of true Protestantism existed throughout its history in America as demonstrated by books like “Disciplined By Grace” (really, disciplined by salvation if the truth be known) by J.F. Strombeck (1946), but post-Revolution America was really more indicative of the Jesus movement of the 60’s, viz, an emphasis on being “born again.”

This led to an individualistic view of salvation that did not empower the church. Besides that, the Jesus movement came out of an anti-establishment culture to begin with. Though I don’t think the Jesus movement ever posed a real threat to church authority, the church certainly viewed it as a threat. Church culture became individualistic, and things like church discipline became all but completely unheard of. In addition, because of new birth ideas that are more biblical than authentic Protestant orthodoxy, the testimony of a believer’s life was heavily emphasized. Acceptance of homosexuality in the church during this time would have been perceived as pure insanity. This was also apposed to Protestant “confessionalism” albeit unwittingly. So, you have the beginning of church history, its post American version, and what we are witnessing in the present day.

Though what we are witnessing in the present day began in 1970, it may never have come to volition if not for the Charismatic movement of the 80’s. That movement posed eminent threat to evangelicalism which defined most of the church during that time. Parishioners were leaving the evangelical church in droves for the Charismatic movement. The church, especially the Reformed part which is supposedly something different than basic Protestantism, was desperate for a doctrine that would challenge the Charismatic movement.

They found the answer in what we know today as the New Calvinism movement. The movement began in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church “Awakening” movement that turned Adventism completely on its head. This part of contemporary church history has been aggressively and deliberately swept under the rug. The Adventist theologian who inspired this movement did so through a rediscovered, and correct view of authentic Protestant soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). This particular individual, Robert Brinsmead, teamed up with two Anglicans and a Reformed Baptist to publish “Present Truth,” a modern-day version of the John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion.

This cannot be highlighted enough. The Present Truth theological journal was an excellent rewriting of the Calvin Institutes in contemporary terms and understanding, and also included Martin Luther’s theological connections to Calvin’s ideology. This prolific publication is one of the more significant works ever published in church history though without a doubt the most obscure. However, during the 70’s, it was the most read theological journal in the world. And what was one of its primary thesis’? Evangelicalism promoted the false gospel of the new birth. Indeed, the evangelical idea of new birth is in stark contrast to Protestant orthodoxy.

Out of its superb explanation of Protestant orthodoxy and its contrast to the evangelicalism of that day, the journal, published by these four men who formed the “Australian Forum,” a Reformed think tank, fingered the evangelical doctrine of the new birth as responsible for the Charismatic movement. The journal’s edition that was a treatise against the Charismatic movement printed over 2 million copies.

The Australian Forum to the rescue.

One uncanny knack that the Forum writers had was the development and use of visual illustrations. They also inspired theologians who jumped on the movement’s bandwagon early on to develop visual illustrations that make authentic Protestant orthodoxy easy to understand.  The following visual illustration by the Australian Forum was used to clarify Martin Luther’s Alien Righteousness doctrine which they used to debunk the Charismatic movement.

@ Man Chart

Be sure of the following: many Charismatic movements saw the handwriting on the wall; either become Reformed or eventually be reduced to mediocracy. This was the beginning of the Reformed Charismatic movement. If “CJ Mahaney” comes to mind, you are thinking correctly. Martin Luther’s Alien Righteousness doctrine was repackaged as “The Centrality of the Objective Gospel Outside of us” or merely, “The Objective Gospel.”

What is this all about? Notice the man on the left and all of the things that result from Christ being “within.” Now, keep in mind, this is NOT talking about the Protestant definition of faith, which is merely an ability to perceive or see; this is illumination, but according to Protestant orthodoxy, NOT righteousness. According to Protestant orthodoxy, faith and righteousness are two different things. If you may note, the man on the right can see all of the good things just fine, but none of them are inside of him, right? According to Protestant orthodoxy, illumination (saving faith) enables one to see good and evil will confessing that we (lost or saved) have NO righteousness within us as a state of being. Christ within is also referred to as “infused grace” which is really the crux of disagreement between the Catholic Church and the Protestant church and sparked the Protestant Reformation.

“But New Calvinists talk about Christ in us all of the time” you say. In all things Protestant, you have to know how they are using the term. In that case, they are talking about the ability to see Christ according to our faith, but excludes any possibility of righteousness within us. In other words, salvation and the accompanying righteousness of God is not infused into the individual; it is merely a “legal declaration.” Of course, this is an outright denial of the biblical new birth. Justification is more than a “legal declaration,” it is a state of being. A genuine believer is not merely declared righteous, WE ARE RIGHTOUS.

In fact, one of the authors of Present Truth and core member of the Forum who wrote an article in the journal titled, “The False Gospel of The New Birth,” was invited to lecture at Southern Seminary by Al Mohler in 2009. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. That same year, John Piper praised the lectures as an accurate treatise about why the Reformation was necessarily. And unfortunately, he is correct in that assertion. The Reformation was ignited over Rome’s movement towards a theology that was not biblical in the final analysis, but acknowledged the internal righteousness of the believer. The idea that the issue of indulgences was the primary catalyst is a myth.

As the church returns to its true Protestant roots, why would anyone be excluded when no person on the face of the earth has any righteousness to begin with? The only question follows: under what pretense will this be accepted? Well, the church is still working that out, and we will look at that in the next part.



2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. lydia00 said, on October 11, 2018 at 7:59 AM

    Mohler asserted in an SBC convention speech a few years back that homosexuality could be genetic. Not arguing the science here but it was a break from his past teaching on the subject. (keep in mind he does a lot of radio commentary here on the subject in the past and has been teaching the opposite for years)

    He was definitely breaking with his past belief on this subject. At the time I couldn’t figure out why because this was years before they had fully adopted the social justice Warrior fad.

    It caused quite a kerfuffle among the ranks. I don’t think any of it has anything to do with beliefs but more to do with marketing. They are now going after Federal and UN dollars. But I do believe that their doctrinal stances back this up.


  2. lydia00 said, on October 11, 2018 at 8:11 AM




    I think I know the reason for the drastic change and I think it’s a face-saving reason. Real life brings lots of challenges up close and personal.

    but we do have to ask ourselves what other things has Al Mohler been so wrong about and needs to repent of teaching masses of young men. Hmmm.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s